20 Against such a policy context, Council's argument is that the design has not taken proper regard of the character of the neighbourhood. The predominant building form in the area is generally single storey Victorian to Interwar dwellings, with typical pitched roofs, eaves, protruding room with a gabled of hipped roof and verandah. The two storey walk-up flats to the immediate north are an anomaly. The proposal has strong reference to the box-like form of the walk-up flat. The flat roof form is not reflective of the pitched roof forms of the area. Contemporary architecture using grey render and silver grey balconies are not consistent with the face brick and weatherboard construction of buildings in the area. The proposed two-storey scale is not reflective of the prevalent scale of development in the area. The balconies are prominent and are a foreign element in the street. The proposed setback of 5.5 metres is not consistent with the setbacks of adjoining buildings: 6 metres for the walk-up flats and 9 metres for the house at 97 St. David Street. The first floor balconies facing the street protrudes forward of the building line. There is a lack of landscaping opportunity throughout the site.
21 Against these, Mr. Song noted the diversity of styles and design of dwellings in the immediate area: older style walk-up flats and modern style unit development. He argued that the proposed front setback, although less than the immediately adjoining properties, is consistent with the prevailing setbacks in this section of St. David Street (referring to Nos. 95 and 93 which have less setback than 97 and 101). Car parking is located at the rear and not visible from St. David Street. Landscaping opportunities still exist within the front setback area. The terrace style formation is a legitimate design as it is a more efficient use of the site than tandem arrangement. The dwellings are designed as three separate dwellings with their own parcel of land, entrances and no common property. The front façade is well articulated. The proposed flat roof form is not alien to the area, as demonstrated by the photographs of recent flat roof developments in the immediate area. The two-storey scale is an appropriate transition between the two storey walk-up flats to the north and the single storey dwellings to the south.
22 My inspection of the site and surrounding area confirms the mixture of style, scale and form of development in St. David Street, particularly in the street block between Collins and Flinders Street. This contrast sharply with the streetscape of nearby Flinders and Mansfield Streets, which have been developed with consistent single and double fronted single storey period homes.
23 Given the mixture of scale and building style of buildings in this part of St. David Street, and the dominance of the walk-up flats at 101 St. David Street, the proposed two storey height and massing, with the first floor recessed from the ground floor and good articulated façade treatment (by balconies, screen over windows, fenestration), side boundary setbacks, and separation of buildings between Units 1 and 2 from Unit 3, car parking located at the rear and totally not visible from the front, represent a streetscape presentation to St. David Street that is consistent with the guidelines for Precinct C2, except for the matter of front setback. Before I address the issue of front setback, I disagree with Council's view that the design is 'box' shaped and hence not acceptable.
24 The guidelines seek to avoid "'Two storey box' shaped dwellings with unarticulated wall surfaces". The proposed recessing of the first floor with a mixture of balconies, verandah and window fenestration provide good articulation. It is not a sheer two-storey 'box'. The modern design of the development does not lend itself to a pitched or hipped roof profile. To do so would increase the height of the building, adding to the dominance of the development against the single storey scale of buildings to the south and east.
25 The main problem I have with the design is the inadequate setback of from St. David Street. The walk-up flats at 101 St. David Street are set 6 metres from the street and the house at 97 is set at 9 metres. Mr. Song argued that the remaining two houses in this block further south have less than 9 metres setback. Even if these properties have less than 9 metre setbacks, their setbacks do not form the prevailing setback for this street block, being 2 out of a total of 5 properties. And, they are not immediately abutting the review site. The proposed 5.5 metres setback is not consistent with the recommendation of Standard B6 and cannot meet the design guidelines of Clause 55.03-1. I can see no justification for the proposed 5.5 metres setback.
26 Council submitted that the minimum setback should be 6 metres, aligning with the walk-up flats at 101 St. David Street to the north, and graduated to a minimum of 7.5 metres at Unit 1. The setback of Unit 2 should be the average between the two. Mr Anderson advised that he could achieve this setback without pushing the building envelope towards the rear.
27 I accept that this compromise would reduce the dominance of the development and is an acceptable outcome for the site. These setbacks would be required by means of a permit condition.
28 Another neighbourhood character issue is the interface of scale and building mass with adjoining properties. The proposed two-storey scale against the taller two storey walk-up flats to the north at No. 101 St. David Street is appropriate. The recessed first floor from the ground floor facing No. 97 St. David Street is also acceptable. There is no building massing abutting the 'backyard' space of No. 97 St. David Street because of the building mass pushed to the front. The rear of the site is developed for secluded private open space and open car parking structure.
29 One last design issue is the clerestory window for Unit 1 above the roof level, a structure that is above the two storey height. This structure sits above the roof and can probably be visible when viewed from an angle. I accept that the size of this structure is not excessive but provides natural light for the walkway, stairs and ground floor meals area of this unit.